All presents are laden with symbolism, Miss Manners warns you, but jewelry is explosive with it, and never more so than when given by a gentleman to a lady or relative to one of the next generation.

Ladies should never confuse gentlemen by accepting jewelry if not prepared to accept the gentleman who offers itónor by criticizing a proffered ring when intending to take the gentleman himself.

Is that "accept for marriage," though? I would say that gifts of jewelry are meaningful, in general, but that the meaning is not always marriage. Certainly, that's the meaning of an engagement ring, and one shouldn't accept an engagement ring unless one accepts the engagement. But I think other pieces of jewelry can have other, intermediate meanings.

For example, I know that in some times and places it has been a big deal to get the guy's fraternity pin (don't know if people still do this), but it didn't mean you were engaged, it was more like going steady. I would say, in general, that if you accept jewelry of value from a guy, you're conveying the message that you accept him for a relationship, but not necessarily for marriage, depending on the context and the type of jewelry.

(And of course this is also subject to common sense; none of us are required to marry a boy who gave us a jelly bracelet in grade school.)

ETA: And I looked up the column, and the context from which she's jumping off is actually a piece of jewelry given by a father to a daughter, and her main point is that the daughter shouldn't criticize the gift to the father's face unless she's prepared to face negative relationship consequences. The romantic aspect is kind of a tangent she went off on and didn't go into great detail about.

It's too soon to give or receive jewelry in the LW's case, but it is outdated that a lady shouldn't receive jewelry from a man unless they are engaged or married. I can't imagine anybody being offended if a woman receive earrings, a necklace, or a bracelet from a guy she's been dating for year or two.

It's too soon to give or receive jewelry in the LW's case, but it is outdated that a lady shouldn't receive jewelry from a man unless they are engaged or married. I can't imagine anybody being offended if a woman receive earrings, a necklace, or a bracelet from a guy she's been dating for year or two.

I think it's odd that there's the unwritten 3 date rule for relations, but you still have to wait until engagement to get a gift. By 6-8 weeks, there are quite a number of relationships that are at the "friendly" stage.

It's too soon to give or receive jewelry in the LW's case, but it is outdated that a lady shouldn't receive jewelry from a man unless they are engaged or married. I can't imagine anybody being offended if a woman receive earrings, a necklace, or a bracelet from a guy she's been dating for year or two.

I think it's odd that there's the unwritten 3 date rule for relations, but you still have to wait until engagement to get a gift. By 6-8 weeks, there are quite a number of relationships that are at the "friendly" stage.

I don't know anyone who takes the 3 date rule seriously. If the LW is uncomfortable with the gift, she should return it. They're not even exclusive, so I can see how the gift would be really over the top to her.

Seriousness of relationship vs length of relationship is such an individual thing that I don't think you can make hard and fast rules like this. I've never been in a relationship where I would have felt comfortable accepting an expensive gift eight weeks in; on the other hand, my friend and her DH were engaged by six weeks.

It's too soon to give or receive jewelry in the LW's case, but it is outdated that a lady shouldn't receive jewelry from a man unless they are engaged or married. I can't imagine anybody being offended if a woman receive earrings, a necklace, or a bracelet from a guy she's been dating for year or two.

I think it's odd that there's the unwritten 3 date rule for relations, but you still have to wait until engagement to get a gift. By 6-8 weeks, there are quite a number of relationships that are at the "friendly" stage.

I don't know anyone who takes the 3 date rule seriously. If the LW is uncomfortable with the gift, she should return it. They're not even exclusive, so I can see how the gift would be really over the top to her.

Seriousness of relationship vs length of relationship is such an individual thing that I don't think you can make hard and fast rules like this. I've never been in a relationship where I would have felt comfortable accepting an expensive gift eight weeks in; on the other hand, my friend and her DH were engaged by six weeks.

It didn't come out like I meant it. I mean, people are much more willing to start relations earlier, it seems to make sense that the gifting rule would also be relaxed now.

I've been in the situation of the giver at times, and I'd say she should keep it and see how he acts afterward. If he starts acting like she owes him something, then that's a sign to give it back to him and tell him to get lost. Maybe he just wanted to give her something nice.

I think we're getting way off track here. Clearly DottyG meant that etiquette at one time dictated that a lady should not accept a gift of an intimate nature-including jewelry included. I really don't think she was passing judgment on anyone here.

That being said, yes, she should return the jewelry to the giver since she is uncomfortable with it and it seems to indicate that he is in a different place in the relationship than she is.

Logged

What have you got? Is it food? Is it for me? I want it whatever it is!